on Mon Mar 02 2009, Arno Schödl <aschoedl-AT-think-cell.com> wrote:
Dave,
r | transform(f) | filter(g) | whatever(h) = whatever(filter(transform(r, f), g, h))
why this way around? Why not
whatever( h, filter(g, transform(f, r) )
which I don't find much worse than the operator| notation,
Better than what I cited, but still inferior to operator|
and it works consistently with anything that expects functions, boost::bind, boost::function, whatever other people have already implemented that invokes operator().
That's indeed a real advantage to function call notation. On the other hand, we have libraries like lambda and phoenix that allow us to work with the operators in a similar way.
I agree with Rogier that I don't see why ranges are so different from doubles, say, that would warrant introducing a new syntax.
And wouldn't concepts in C++0x allow augmenting Ranges with things that can be invoked method-style, like
r.transform(f).filter(g).whatever(h)
You could do that today, but it's got the same coupling problem as named parameters in Boost.Graph and is solved by Boost.Parameter. Is there something in C++0x that causes decoupling? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com